The New Elite - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102202873.html

<comment><USER2> Let me grab two key excerpts from the article (one from the beginning and one from the end) and reverse the order in which they appear.

> Taken individually, members of the New Elite are isolated from mainstream > America as a result of lifestyle choices that are nobody's business but > their own. But add them all up, and they mean that the New Elite lives in a > world that doesn't intersect with mainstream America in many important ways. > When the tea party says the New Elite doesn't get America, there is some > truth in the accusation.

> What sets the tea party apart from other observers of the New Elite is its > hostility, rooted in the charge that elites are isolated from mainstream > America and ignorant about the lives of ordinary Americans.

Taken in that sense (and I believe that is the basic point of the article) there is reason to believe that a large segment of the population feels unrepresented. Probably unrespected, too. Looking at some of the early comments I can see HN-ers writing "Why should we care about X?" or "What makes X more American?" when X is characteristic of small town, rural, or blue collar America? Despite the slant the article implies, X isn't _more_ American, but it _is_ still American.

This is my theory: the Tea Party folks see the things that the "New Elites" care about and see "New Elite culture" on TV/etc. and in that sense have some exposure to it, but the reverse doesn't seem to be true. Those on the bottom spend more time looking up than those at the top spend looking down. And there are very few non-"New Elites" in positions of power to represent them. That's my best guess.

When people in power make decisions that can affect thousands or millions, you don't want to have a blind spot that misses how your actions will impact or be viewed by a large swath of the population. It does seem like the "New Elite" occupies many positions of power in government and society as a whole. And it looks at least plausible that the "New Elites" have a cultural blind spot for the people that now rally under a Tea Party banner. Despite some of the political slanting of the article, I think that's an important point to recognize.

</comment><comment><USER3> > The members of the New Elite may love America, but, increasingly, they are > not of it.

So, why exactly is Football more American than Yoga; "Left Behind" more American than "Mad Men"; Branson, MO more American than NY, NY? It seems like he has a very narrow and dated view of what America is.

> They are merely isolated and ignorant.

Wait, people who read Left Behind are less ignorant and isolated than MIT grads? What planet does this guy live on?

<comment><USER4> 1\. Apart from the fake populism, I was struck in the print edition by the Southernization of America--I'm supposed to car about stock car racing and and country music? Back in the day those were amusements that started south of the Ohio.

2."Why is football more American than yoga?" I guess you could ask the guys who advertise beer, tires, and pharmaceuticals for the ills of the baby boomers.

<comment><USER5> I'm uncertain if said populism is fake. Most of HN readers likely fit the stereotype that the author is attempting to project in this article.

But that's what he is making: a stereotype and only a stereotype.

His assertions read more like assumptions that only sparingly drew on sociological information. When he referred to, I believe, a single sociological tome, he only considered "elite" schools. He neglected those of us who did not attend Ivy League (UVa here and I was a miserable college student indeed) and those who did not attend college at all! Instead, he seemed to prefer to pick bones with his journalistic peers.

Living in Worcester County, Maryland for the past couple of years, I find that I did not understand the "Digital Divide" until meeting for myself children with no computer or internet connection at home. Are these children likely to become the next Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Mark Zuckerburg? I highly doubt it. Even if they have it within them, this environment does not care to foster those interests. Instead, the local "vocational tech" school seems to emphasize and curriculum involving auto repair and HVAC. This makes me sad. And it makes me just a touch more sympathetic to this clearly embittered journalist.

Bring on the down votes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was trying really hard to understand his argument. I can buy that the various social and economic forces of our time are creating a new type of caste, an "elite."

If the guy spent less time insulting and more time with real numbers (not the circumstantial evidence he did give), I might agree. This whole article is just divisive and useless though: the people who already agree will be validated and the people who didn't will feel insulted.

</comment><comment><USER7> This writer takes an interesting perspective on the state of society in America today. The point that I think he's making is that there are severely and distinctly different Americans today than ever before, the outcome of which is a cultural and, to a point, class level struggle which no one is acknowledging.

This cultural and class struggle is juvenile at the base: Starbucks drinkers vs non-Starbucks drinkers; stock-car racing fans vs non-stock-car racing fans; meat eaters vs vegans; and on and on. Today, if you're fan of something in America, you're proud of that something and you want everyone else to know and this ultimately serves to make you feel superior about others because you're a something fan. Hollywood celebrities and other famous people are spotlighted for this all the time.

Now to a guy living in a trailer park, who sees Cameron Diaz drink Fiji water on TV, goes to the market and sees the price of Fiji water and comes out thinking these people are nuts, a spark of disconnect is created. Now Cameron Diaz goes on TV to promote some politician. Trailer Park Guy sees both of them drinking Fiji water and now is sure that this guy drinking that expensive bottle of water cannot possibly understand the concerns of a trailer park. Trailer Park Guy now associates himself to a Sarah Palin politician just because he mentally can't associate himself with Fiji Water Politician.

By focusing and fueling this type of thinking, the Republicans are winning the American majority.

</comment><comment><USER8> I thought that name sounded familiar. He mentions it in passing, but this is one of the guys who wrote the Bell Curve.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve>

I'd seriously question his credibility on this topic. A bunch of cherry-picked wedding announcements plus some ivy league admission rates aren't gonna do it for me, guy.

</comment><comment><USER9> Lessee... Lots of these now-TEA-party folks spent 8 years making goo-goo eyes over Dubya. Yale and Harvard Biz. Guess they really didn't like him?

<comment><USER8> They talk a good talk, but they really don't care about elites except through the narrow parameters they define--- they're angry about liberal or educated elites, not the rich folks funding them or buying elections.

It's about identity politics, among other things: anybody that's not like them isn't a real American, and they've got to take back the country from same. They're animated by the fear of and anger at their increasing irrelevance. And the Koch brothers are more than happy to help out.

It's funny, though, because people who aren't from the US who talk about visiting the US talk about NYC kind of a lot. Branson, MO? Where the hell is that? Oh, right. Flyover country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Isn't he just saying in a roundabout way, the new elite are defined as rich, educated and successful (rather from aristocracy)?

If one is in that position, why would they need or want to relate to the poor and uneducated?</comment>


How do you keep up with security notices? - <AUTHOR>

Earlier this year Ruby had a few security notices. If I wasn't reading HN, I wouldn't have known to check. What does everyone use to alert them about these important events? <comment><USER2> Use an information service of computer emergency response teams (CERT). They usually provide subscription lists.

US-CERT can be found here: [https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSUSCERT/subscrib...](https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSUSCERT/subscriber/new)</comment>


Richest 1% Will Own More Than All the Rest by 2016 - <AUTHOR> http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/richest-1-will-own-more-than-all-the-rest-by-2016/ <comment><USER2> Economic growth and the resulting distribution of wealth / capital is not a zero sum game. So the fact that the top 1% owns more than the rest, is not a problem per sé. Who cares what 'they' own, if I / we can live happily, in wealth and in health. An opinion on the distribution of wealth (Piketty) is more political than economical.

But even on the more libertarian axis of the spectrum (for the US: conservative, for the rest of the world: liberal), it might be troubling.

'We' are working hard to eradicate poverty in all those countries attached to the 'global economy'. That is such a big plus in the lives of billions.

But for the already developed world it might be different. One of (my) principles to hold dear is the chance of improving oneself by studying, working hard, etc. The demise of the middle class in many developed countries, is an example. It seems to be getting harder for the many to work hard, own a house and save enough for retirement.

The rents paid to the winners in, say, the financial sector or modern internet are so disproportionate that they feel more like luck than skill. I don't have an answer of policy, because if you target that glut of wealth but end op hurting innovation, you hurt the billions as well.

But if (very big if) things like quantitative easing are stimulating the glut of cash flowing towards finance and venture capital, we might not be creating a very stable future where hard work and effort get rewarded with any notion of certainty. And that ís a problem for the world.

<comment><USER3> The problem as I see it is not wealth per se, but the fact that wealth confers power. Concentrated wealth means concentrated power, and that means the concentration of both will accelerate.

A rising tide lifts all boats, but who says the elite will remain content with a rising tide? Once they accumulate enough wealth and power, they may start to find it advantageous to add to their own wealth by impoverishing the rest.

It's often said that economics is not a zero sum game, and that for one person to win, another does not have to lose. That is, of course, completely true! But it doesn't mean that it's _impossible_ for one person to win by causing another to lose.

This, of course, is nothing new. One of the best ways to accumulate power and wealth throughout history has been to conquer and enslave. One of the best things about the modern world is that we've managed to structure it such that conquest and enslavement are no longer good ways to obtain power and wealth, and you do much better by figuring out a better way to give people what they want. But there's nothing that says it couldn't go back to the way it was, perhaps with more clever and subtle techniques than simply leading a bunch of rough men on horses into the villages of your enemies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/what- oxfam-...](http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/what-oxfam-doesnt- want-you-to-know-global-capitalism-means-theres-less-poverty-than-ever/)

(What Oxfam doesn't want you to know: global capitalism means less poverty than ever)

<comment><USER5> If everyone in the 99% was earning barely $2/day then you could also argue we've "eradicated poverty" by that metric.

There's two problems here, one of which is the non-1% is being squeezed hard even if the lowest 20% is seeing modest gains.

<comment><USER6> You (as well as this article, though less so) are conflating wealth and income. Wealth is a stock; income is a flow.

In any economy what is produced is split between wages and profits. Wages are the returns to labor, while profits are the return to capital. Income to households can be both returns on wealth or returns on labor, so clearly higher income will be correlated with higher wealth, and wealth inequality can be both cause and effect of income in equality.

What the Oxfam article fails to mention, is that quality of life and income have improved DRAMATICALLY for billions of people over the past 50 years, and ironically what is standing in way of the bottom 50% are often legal and cultural obstacles to accumulating capital -- wealth -- at both the individual and national level.

<comment><USER5> I have no idea why you insist on splitting hairs here. Most people have marginal income and zero or negative wealth.

Those with higher incomes have higher wealth. The correlation here couldn't be stronger even if it's not strictly linear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Pretty sick of the constant class warfare nonsense.

People are not poor because Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Oprah have lots of money. They are poor for other reasons which could fill pages to list and discuss. The rich are not oppressing the poor or causing class disparity. Government definitely is by sticking it's grotesque paws where it should not.

Apparently Obama is going to propose a hike in capital gains tax to 28%. If that happens it would have gone up from 20% to 28% under his watch. That is a 40% increase overall! There are consequences to such changes. They are destructive to the country, businesses, the middle class and the poor. We need to go in the opposite direction.

Blaming the rich is just a nice populist way to focus people away from where the real problems might lie.

</comment><comment><USER8> Some people assume the default scale of things is linear. This is false. The default is logarithmic. When feeling snarky I like to say that it's called the natural log for a reason.

I feel like I see the 1%/50% ratio in more than a few places. One percent of people own 50% of wealth. One percent of mobile apps make 50% of the revenue. And probably a few more with respect to digital store fronts. Maybe not exactly 1/50, but certainly closer to that than what people would like/hope for. Can anyone think of more 1/50 examples?

</comment><comment><USER9> The Oxfam text is called: "Wealth: Having it all and wanting more". This bothers me.

"Wanting more" is pretty much the human condition, I'd hate to paraphrase Gordon Gekko but that's why we're were we are today, that's why absolute poverty is about to be eradicated.

Yes, inheritance can be disgusting but if that's part of what helps create more wealth, so be it.

And no, I don't think people would move to the rocky mountains if we would limit wealth creation for oneself, but I definitely think less (of anything) would be created.

<comment><USER10> I inherit my parents genes. I inherit my fathers disposition and many of his attitudes. I inherit from my parents to know what it means to be cared for. Loved. Believed in. Supported.

Of all the things I will inherit, money is the least of the advantages I'll get. Indeed it's the money spent before inheriting that has the biggest impact for most people. I think inheritance is the wrong battle to fight, it rarely impacts opportunity or environment which are so formative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Basically a duplicate (different article discussing the same source): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8910476](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8910476)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. I posted the original source.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> so what? I'm not worse off because Bill Gates or the Waltons have billions in wealth. In fact, I'm better off. Microsoft, Walmart and the myriad of other corporate empires lowers the costs of goods which improves my standard of living.

<comment><USER13> If you are in a field that isn't negatively effected by the Walton's downward pressure on salaries, then yes, they've raised your _personal_ standard of living.

When the Walton's employ people for less 40 hours a week just so they don't have to pay benefits, they are externalizing that cost to the other taxpayers (food stamps, housing assistance, health insurance).

I'm not without blame here. I'm pretty sure whenever I eat at a Chinese restaurant that they are exploiting workers. The fact that the workers are better off than they would be in China isn't really a defense.

<comment><USER12> have you ever been to a walmart? I would wager half of its employees are unemployable and would be on 100% assistance were it not for walmart.

It isn't just my standard of living either. go to walmart at 11pm, or 2am and see the shoppers there. their money goes a lot farther at walmart than it does at costco. The massive scale of walmart's business coupled with the billions it spend on trans log drives prices down. If walmart weren't there, how much higher would target's prices be? or the prices at dollar general?</comment></comment></comment>


Speculation grows over pardon for Edward Snowden after Trump remarks - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/14/edward-snowden-trump-presidential-pardon-speculation <comment><USER2> Let's not forget Manning and Asange.</comment>


Dishwashers, and How Google Eats Its Own Tail - <AUTHOR> http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/12/dishwashers_dem.html <comment><USER2> If this is indeed such a big problem (I haven't really observed it myself) what I don't understand is how these sites are gaming page-rank.

In order to reach the top of the search page the sites need many incoming links. Where are these links coming from if the sites add little value ?</comment>


Chapter 7 ("Sign up") of the Ruby on Rails Tutorial book is out - <AUTHOR> http://www.railstutorial.org/chapters/sign-up#top

<comment><USER2> Thanks Michael! My friend and I are just starting a website and we decided to do it using RoR even though our knowledge is close to none. We're both PHP developers and thought that if we made a website in RoR we would learn it by trial-and-error. I just heard about railstutorial.org today. I have skimmed through your tutorial book and find it quite useful. I will definitely read it in the next couple of days! (:

<comment><AUTHOR> You're welcome! Be sure to send me feedback on anything you find confusing or if you find any errors. I should be able to fix them straightaway since my publication process goes something like this:

      $ <fix problem>
      $ git commit -am "Fixed problem"
      $ deploy tutorial

This generates the HTML and builds the PDF from the same source, and then pushes them both up to Heroku. It's very satisfying. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For those of you clicking on this link who haven't yet looked at Michael's tutorial, it's excellent. I'm not a developer, know no languages other than a bit of html & css, and still had a fun time getting through chapters 1-4. Michael is a very good writer (check out RailsSpace) and has spent a lot of time thinking about the best way to teach.

RailsTutorial, like Ruby and Rails, just feels right.

\-- Fred

</comment><comment><USER4> Michael, thanks! Awesome work.

If I might suggest one improvement: I'd change @title with content_for. A class attribute needlessly messes View and Controller.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good suggestion, and I'll definitely think about it. Early on in the tutorial I'd prefer to keep it as-is for simplicity and to help motivate instance variables. Also, it seems that setting instance variables in controllers for use in views is a common pattern. But switching to content_for at some point might make for a nice example of refactoring. (Good thing the book has tests for page titles. ;-)

EDIT: Come to think of it, this might make for a good exercise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5>
      def create
        @user = User.new(params[:user])
        @title = "Sign up"
        render 'new'
      end

So the end user can mess around with the form, add is_admin=1 to the other CGI params and end up with an admin account. (Or similar.) Fabulous.

<comment><USER6> I don't see a problem with distilling an example to the basics when teaching beginners. Your concern should certainly be addressed at some point in the book though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed. See my other comment. :-)</comment></comment></comment>


Survey: Men 9x More Likely to Say Silicon Valley a Meritocracy - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/is-silicon-valley-a-meritocracy/503948/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Confused by the math. 20% of women say its a meritocracy. 50% of the men. Where does the '9x' claim come from?</comment>


A laser experiment to show the Uncertainty Principle [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT7xJ0tjB4A

<comment><USER2> I love his old school HeNe Laser! Takes me back.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you don't know who Walter Lewin is, have a look here - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lewin_Lectures_on_Physic...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lewin_Lectures_on_Physics)

</comment><comment><USER4> As the slit gets smaller the percentage of photons that are bouncing off of the walls of the slit as compared to the percentage that goes through directly raises.

<comment><USER5> True, but geometric rays of light bouncing off the walls of the slit won't broaden the beam. Similarly, the barrel of a machine gun doesn't broaden the stream of bullets coming out.

Only Heisenberg does (note, however, this is a purely classical/maxwellian use of Heisenberg).

<comment><USER6> Right, but it is interesting that if the camera were adjusting it's iris due to the decrease in light, we would see the same thing without Heisenberg. The spread would be there in both cases, but would be overwhelmed in the wide-open case by all of the particles of light making it straight through. As the light intensity lowered and the iris widened to compensate, the effects of the photons bouncing off of the walls of the slit would begin to be more visible.</comment></comment></comment>


Survey Says: Mobile Developers More Interested in Creating iOS Apps than Android - <AUTHOR> http://blog.smartbear.com/software-quality/bid/211651/survey-says-mobile-developers-more-interested-in-creating-ios-apps-than-android <comment><USER2> I think one of the contributions to the "bottom line" of programming for IOS is the fact that Apple users are willing to pay more (regard the Orbitz anecdata on Apple users and hotel bookings).

I'm not as convinced about the asserted higher quality of the IOS apps. I've downloaded an appalling bad app from the app store, with a bad UI and crashy temperment. I wonder how that one got through Apple quality control.</comment>


An end to 'bill shock' as EU mobile roaming charges are slashed - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/apr/30/end-bill-shock-eu-mobile-roaming-charges-slashed-phone <comment><USER2> The problem right now is: if I am in Italy and I send an SMS to a French phone (regardless of where it actually is) I spend 30 cents as this is not regulated in any way by the roaming laws. On the other hand if I'm roaming and I send an SMS to any cell phone in Europe I pay 7 cents.

This means that most of the time if you have someone visiting you there is a huge asymmetry in prices when corresponding, the only problem is: I don't know how they're ever going to address this.

<comment><USER3> Actually, that shouldn't be possible.

The EU limited cross-national SMS to 10ct per SMS, and 10ct per minute of phone calls, too.

<comment><USER4> Are you sure? I have never heard that nor could I find anything in the roaming regulation. I just checked a few (German) mobile providers and all charge more than you suggest.

<comment><USER3> I know ALDI Talk changed theirs down with the justification that "the EU roaming regulations also apply to calling from your home country to another country".

<comment><USER4> Telekom still charges up to a euro per minute and the price list was updated last week: [http://www.telekom.de/dlp/agb/pdf/43777.pdf](http://www.telekom.de/dlp/agb/pdf/43777.pdf) I know why I'm not a customer there...

<comment><USER3> Wow, that's impressive. There's another good reason not to use T-Mobile.

Aldi Talk costs only 0,12€ to US, Canada, Mexico, and only 0,11€ to EU (same as nationally).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wouldn't call it "an end", €0.05 extra per MB of data is still very very expensive. It seems like a low number, but people forget it's per MB. Going out, claiming an end to "bill stock", could mean that people will forget that maybe the kids shouldn't be watching Netflix during the holiday, unless they're on WIFI. You still need to disable mobile data when traveling around the EU, because it's not going to be as cheap as using it at home, far from it.

<comment><USER6> Quite - but you selected a bit of an edge case @ netflix.

This will go along way in preventing people getting slaughtered because Windows decided to quietly do a 300mb update. 15 Euro...big deal. Hell there are country/carrier combinations where that will cost you ~10k EUR (admittedly non-EU...don't know what the highest EU combo is).

Most people just want to check their mails and browse facebook without having to re-mortgage their house.

<comment><USER7> Netflix on holiday is a number one use case for me.

<comment><USER8> I don't want to sound smug or anything, but why go abroad to watch Netflix?

<comment><USER6> Well I had a 7 hour stop over on a foreign airport today (LGW) so its not impossible.

But as I said - edge case and very much something that most people would think through carefully in terms of connectivity. e.g. I knew today I can push maybe 250mb before my 3G bombed out. So I browsed instead of netflixed.

<comment><USER8> Ah yes, airport stopovers are a good point. Maybe also business travel to "boring" places.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Soooo since hn has a strong libertarian streak, what's the downside?

Certainly forcing the standization of chargers seemed to make life easier across the world.

<comment><USER10> Sometimes such regulations are good, sometimes they're not. If some company makes a bad decision then it hurts that company and gives advantage to other companies. If regulator makes a bad decision, there is no escape from it and there are completely no consequences for him.

Often it's even hard to tell if something is going to turn out to be a good decision or bad. So even ignoring potential corruption or incompetence and assuming best intentions, it's still seems better to me not to depend on a single entity.

> Certainly forcing the standization of chargers

Nobody forced anybody. There was no EU regulation that all phones must use such and such charger. Companies were simply optimizing for profit and that decision aligned with it.

<comment><USER11> Whilst compliance with the European Initiative [1] is voluntary, I find it hard to believe that without the EU proposing the Initiative (presumably with an implied threat of a non-voluntary initiative), that phone manufacturers would all have magically chosen to optimise profit by employing standard micro USB.

I vividly recall the days of smartphones with custom variants of usb cables.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply)

<comment><USER10> Sorry, I wasn't awary of this Initiative. I still would say that it is in best manufacturers interest and they would switch, just like now they are switching to USB-C, but maybe I am wrong after all.

<comment><USER12> It was the wild west of cables.

Samsung / LG etc were the worst with cables you couldn't even use with different models.

Nokia + Sony were the best as theirs worked for all their respective phones + later nokia switched to USB micro. The standards change made everything so much better!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great news. I've switched between 4 different SIM cards in the last week to get decent data costs in the various countries.

Seems rather unnecessary.

</comment><comment><USER13> Aw, they switched from fixed maximum tariffs, to maximum surcharges. This means that now it'll actually be more expensive to use my phone abroad. Currently, the maximum tariffs are lower than the rates charged at home, for me.

<comment><USER4> The previous cap still applies in cases like yours.

<comment><USER13> Oh, alright then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder how this will cover "unlimited" data plans. e.g. The German SIM I've got switches to a throttled speed after the data bundle is exhausted. (Pretty damn slow, but somewhat usable - and weirdly FB voice calls seemed fine).

<comment><USER4> From mid-2017 those unlimited plans need to carry over while roaming without surcharge. They can however switch off the connection after you reached a (yet to be defined) limit to stop perpetual roamers, i.e. those buying SIM cards from countries other than their residence.

<comment><USER6> >(yet to be defined) limit to stop perpetual roamers, i.e. those buying SIM cards from countries other than their residence.

I'm tempted to say they should allow perpetual roamers.

That throttled plan I mentioned is sufficiently slow that nobody sane will actually use it long term. Only tourists will use it (google maps & lost) and people utterly desperate for communication. Now if you think about Norway etc introducing broadband internet as a human right then I think we can throw people a bone and give free 384kbps free (thats roughly what it felt like - baring the freakish FB voice working).

384kbps is really at a point where one can say fk it the community will take the financial hit for the greater good. If everyone is guaranteed the ability to send whatsapp/telegram/fb messengers to loved ones & friends that'll save us all a good amount of grief.

For context: It still connects at HSDPA/LTE speeds @ physical link but the throughput is 384kbps - picking that number because I used to be on 384 DSL as a reference point...not because I measured it.

<comment><USER14> For international travel I use a Project Fi SIM card that provides data roaming at 256kbps. While web sites load slightly slower, I'm otherwise perfectly happy with 256kbps roaming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So if I have free data available with my monthly plan say 1gb, and I travel to another eu country do I still use my free mb + .05eu per MB or my providers rate for over my data allowance + the .05 ?

</comment><comment><USER16> amen - but is there any hope for the rest of the world?

I'd love to throw out my santa sack of international sim cards. Maybe I should stop whingeing and just buy some telco shares. Can't beat 'em-

</comment><comment><USER17> I said it a thousand times. Joe average, who doesn't work remote and saves money for his two week holidays in Italy, will pay for the creme de ka creme hipsters jetting around Europe pretending they are in Silicon Valey.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is one of the few areas of customer-protection where I disagree with the EU.

If mobile carriers are colluding to set unreasonable roaming charges then prosecute that as a cartel. But the EU has no business establishing actual call and data charges.

As a result of their intervention they indirectly increase domestic mobile rates for all the people who aren't roaming. The mobile firms can just increase domestic rates to compensate for lower roaming revenues.

<comment><USER19> As someone who lives and travels in the EU and has had more than enough of this bill shock, I'm all for this regulation - it was clear that the arbitrary border charges were being used (in the smaller EU states) as a way to gouge customers.

If the mobile providers continue to gouge customers by just transferring the costs to domestic billing, then that is something that the EU should _also_ address, and as a subject of EU regulations in this regard, I'm all for it.

<comment><USER20> > If the mobile providers continue to gouge customers by just transferring the > costs to domestic billing, then that is something that the EU should also > address

I doubt that'll be necessary, "local" prices are something users can and do check when comparing offers. The roaming issue comes from roaming info usually being small footnotes, most consumers not thinking about the subject (and not considering they'd need it) and needs changing, most people didn't really need data roaming a few years ago, things are markedly different with the "always connected" smartphones.

Basically, roaming prices were a place where MSPs could safely gouge a small fraction of consumers (and make them feel bad for it) without much risk of building up a big protest movement. Most of them apparently didn't see or refused to act on the winds changing, and thus the EU hammer coming down on the practice.

<comment><USER18> > The roaming issue comes from roaming info usually being small footnotes, > most consumers not thinking about the subject (and not considering they'd > need it )

Then the EU should set standards for roaming advertising and contracts, not dictate the price.

I can't think of any other domain of business where a Western national or supra-national government set privte-sector prices because customers can't be trusted to read T&Cs.

Car rental contracts often have horrific small-print penalties for crossing intra-European state boundaries, but I don't see the EU intervening there.

<comment><USER19> >I can't think of any other domain of business where a Western national or supra-national government set privte-sector prices because customers can't be trusted to read T&Cs.

Example: California, fixing prices of electricity within the state. (not a good example, but one you should probably be aware of as it supports your argument while also giving you a clue that its not just the naughty euro- socialists doing these sorts of things..)

Anyway the EU are not setting prices because customers don't read T&C's. They're setting prices because their citizens get royally screwed by price gouging, whether they read the T&C or not, and its a serious economic issue in a region where cross-border travel is significantly higher than in any other part of the world.

Its one thing to assume that the EU is exerting some sort of fascist power over the free market and ruining it. Its another thing entirely when the EU actually does its job and protects the subjects of its member states from predatory business practices... but I guess this is an economics argument about the free market and capitalism, which I fear is not one you and I are about to form consensus. I'm quite happy for the telecom's to be getting their comeuppance in this market - the gouging is really, really heinous. For those of us who have to live here and work within the EU framework, this is exactly the sort of thing the EU is good for...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


SpaceX Preps for Three Block 5 Launches in Just Two Weeks - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-preps-for-three-block-5-launches-in-just-two-weeks <comment><USER2> And if reusability is well over 10x, they are on their way to have enough rockets to cover all launches until BFR comes online.

<comment><USER3> It's only the first stage that's recovered, but they'll at least have first stage rockets in plenty, and that's no small feat.

(I'm not disagreeing with you, just a clarification)</comment></comment>


The Failed Promise of Innovation in the U.S. - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_24/b4135000953288.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story

<comment><USER2> We've past all the long hanging fruit. Everything from here on forward is going to take more time, money, and people than. 100-200 years ago there were thousands of people at best with the education to push things forward. Often they were experts in several fields. Today we have hundreds of thousands of people pushing on these fields (of which people are only an expert in one or two things). All of the easy answers are gone.

This is compounded by the bar being really high and the regulation really thick. What counts as a great innovation in alternate energy today requires at least being competitive with existing technology, which has almost one hundred years of development by tens of thousands of engineers at thousands of companies. It is no wonder it takes longer. And you have to worry (rightly so) the environmental and safety aspects of things that wouldn't have mattered 150 years ago.

All of these things slow down progress and make it more expensive. One of the reason progress was cheap in computer science was because the field was young, but as it matures we will see a slow down in innovation. Only fools will continue to believe Moore's "law" has any truth looking 20 years into the future.

<comment><USER3> Careful.

 _What counts as a great innovation in alternate energy today requires at least being competitive with existing technology, which has almost one hundred years of development by tens of thousands of engineers at thousands of companies._

That also applies to coal vs charcoal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems to me that the problem isn't the lack of innovation. It isn't the lack of ideas. It seems to be that investors want instant gratification and rapid commercialise.

However, several of the largest fundamental advances in technology came out of pure research, curiosity without the attempt to commercialise. For example, when the laser was first created, the researchers saw no commercial applications for it. Now, lasers are a key component of our fiber-optic communication backbones.

What's needed isn't more innovation; Instead, more patience is needed. More exploration out of curiosity. More investment in pure knowledge. More research.

The fruits of commercial applications will grow off the tree of knowledge only if the tree of knowledge is well nourished.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Read [http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/06/insufficient_in.ht...](http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/06/insufficient_in.html) for more

</comment><comment><USER5> check out this filmstrip, Brian Dewan on innovation: [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9638211...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96382116)

</comment><comment><USER6> counterpoint: [http://fredwilson.vc/post/117874217/when-we-talk-about- innov...](http://fredwilson.vc/post/117874217/when-we-talk-about-innovation- and-global)</comment>


AWS Elastic Load Balancing: Support for SSL Termination - <AUTHOR> http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2010/10/elastic-load-balancer-support-for-ssl-termination.html

<comment><USER2> If you use this, your customers' data is now in cleartext between the ELB and your instance. Now, that may be fine, you're already trusting EC2 if you keep cleartext data on disk. But it's worth keeping in mind.

<comment><USER3> Is there a reason why you cant have one of these forward to an HTTPS port that's using a long-lived self-signed certificate? That way you'd keep things SSL'ed the whole way, but updating your certs becomes easier (upload a new one to the ELB vs distribute it to all your servers).

I haven't tried this myself and the docs dont say if its (im)possible, but it seems like that'd be a good feature.

<comment><USER4> _Is there a reason why you cant have one of these forward to an HTTPS port that's using a long-lived self-signed certificate?_

Much better: Forward via HTTPS to EC2 instances which are using _short-lived_ certificates. When you boot a new instance to add to your load balancing cluster, have it generate an SSL key which ELB is told to trust. If a node is compromised, you just tell ELB to not trust that certificate any more.

But that doesn't seem to be possible, and it still doesn't make up for the fact that putting SSL stacks and $BIGNUM SSL keys together is practically begging to be attacked.

<comment><USER3> I'm not a security expert by any means, but why is telling ELB "dont trust cert X" any better than removing the compromised instances from the ELB via the API (or just terminating the instance entirely)?

<comment><USER5> because in theory, the private key that was stored on that trusted instance could have been stolen ready to be used to impersonate that machine later on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> SSL is nice, but I want to assign an elastic IP to my ELB (or just an A record) so I can get around the CNAME-only problem.

<comment><USER7> Please! We were on with our AWS account manager today and mentioned this to them again. He says they hear that quite a bit. Hopefully that means they're listening to the feedback and will be adding it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is some pretty sweet news. This was one of the reasons why I ended up not using AWS ELBs. I wonder if this will make an impact on Heroku's pricing for SSL. I assume they had to somehow get around the technical difficulties themselves.

<comment><USER9> I wonder if this was one of the reasons Engine Yard doesn't use ELBs? Instead they use ha-proxy, which unfortunately can not terminate SSL, and due to unchangeable kernel settings on EC2 can not pass a direct TCP connection through. The result: you can't see client IPs on SSL requests on EY AppCloud! We got burned pretty bad by this due to the fact that we are a global VOD site that depends on geo location for film availability. It wasn't terribly difficult to workaround, but it's not the kind of thing you'd expect as a web developer.

I would LOVE to get on an ELB, assuming that failover can be handled gracefully.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've also seen this named "ssl offloading" and anecdotally I found responsiveness to greatly increase on my zimbra webmail server once I placed an nginx web proxy ahead of it just to do decryption (this wasn't through AWS).

</comment><comment><USER11> I would love to see what crypto card offload cluster they built for this.

<comment><USER12> I wouldn't be surprised if x86 is now cheaper than crypto cards.</comment></comment>


Major SSH outage at BitBucket - <AUTHOR> http://status.bitbucket.org/incidents/01z9dn7ybqk8

<comment><USER2> This is the current update from the BB team: "We have resolved the current issues with the platform. Our workers are slowly working through a fairly large backlog of requests that have been pending since the issues originally started. Things are continuing to stabilize, but will take another hour or 2 before things are back to normal and your requests are fully processed."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Update: "Partial service has been restored. Repository clones and pulls should complete without problem on HTTPS as well as SSH. Pushes and pull-request updates are still functioning at a limited capacity and may not work as expected for some users. Sep 2, 15:05 UTC"

So ~2 hours from "investigating" to "identified"... not a terrible response.

</comment><comment><USER3> It looks like SSH is completely down, and some people can't connect over https either. Overall status page:

[http://status.bitbucket.org/](http://status.bitbucket.org/)

(Notice the spikes in the past hour or so.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea... it's really bad. I was hoping someone in the NH community had deeper knowledge of the problem. Curious if it was a DoS attack similar to those launched against GitHub a while back.</comment></comment>


Designing an audio adblocker - <AUTHOR> https://www.adblockradio.com/blog/2018/11/15/designing-audio-ad-block-radio-podcast/ <comment><USER4> Its worth investigating the increased use of Subaudible tones to demarcate commercials. These subaudibles are originally intended to be captured by your phones and tablets in order to allow the company to track you across multiple devices through their microphones. the tones are also used to detect commercial ad presence for analytics companies or suites used by advertisers.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaudible_tone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaudible_tone)

One could use these tones to 'detect' a commercial and avoid it, or strip out these tones entirely to promote operational security amongst devices.

<comment><USER5> >One could use these tones to 'detect' a commercial and avoid it, or strip out these tones entirely to promote operational security amongst devices.

Or one could layer superfluous erroneous tones into every stream to poison the dataset.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. Note I have designed Adblock Radio to rely on audio only, so that it gives the smallest possible margin for radio operators to circumvent it.

I do not rely on metadata, nor do I use the usual time schedules for ad breaks.

<comment><USER6> That's great, but can't you use the subaudible tones as an additional blocking metric? Or even as an assessment metric to flag potential false negatives?

<comment><AUTHOR> It may be possible, research is needed on that topic

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A response to some of the many arguments expressed in this thread:

"Then don't listen to it". Alternatively, I'll do what I do now, which is listen to it but skip the ads and wait for software that can automatically skip them to come around, which is the same thing I did for websites.

"That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use adblock software on their browser. Of course adblock software came after web browsers built in popup blockers in response to the X-10 Spycam being 50% of web advertising circa 2001-2003, so really you could argue the web browsers are selfish and we're all selfish if we don't turn off the popup blockers. Really, even if a website says "By using this website, we're going to install malware on your computer", you're selfish if you reject the malware. If selfish means that I make decisions that make things better for me at the expense of others, then yes, I am selfish when it comes to ads. I view ads as toxic and bad for my health, and I take measures to avoid them.

"But it'll lead to the collapse of podcast publishing". Maybe. Of course publishers repeatedly said adblocking would lead to the collapse of the web, and as best as I can tell mostly idiots doing a pivot to Facebook Video caused what collapse did occur (because, as selfish actors, they pursued a greater revenue stream at the expense of quality and integrity -- oops, turns out there's no money there because the numbers are all fake.), Adblocking also ushered in sustainable models for journalism, blogging, etc. Certainly all the websites I read have found alternate revenue models just fine. Maybe that's because the ones that didn't went under, but I apparently didn't notice.

If podcasting collapses and goes back to the dark ages of being a non- commercial hobby medium like it was three years ago, like, okay?

"Stop comparing podcasts to websites, podcast ads aren't as bad" Maybe, but you don't get to decide for me my threshold for ignoring or blocking ads. Ads weren't as bad when I started using AdBlock Plus in 2004, but they were bad enough for me to decide to use it. Others may have had their breaking point later because they are less sensitive to ads. Some people might still browse the web with ads on and claim they don't care. You do you.

The strange thing to me is people expressing that they'd rather block ads, but they're too noble to do so, so they get mad at others for blocking ads? Uh, okay?

<comment><USER8> > "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use Adblock > software on their browser.

I don't see this as selfish, not when it comes online ads. I think this "moral" argument is pushed by people who generally benefit from ads and have less incentive to considers ethical issues raised by ad tech. From their perspective, advertising is free money. Publishing has a cost and people's work and effort should be compensated, all right. But you are not ripping someone off just because they picked the wrong revenue model. You are just protecting yourself by preventing your data being used by thirds parties without your consent. And you should.

And besides, there are ethical ads options. Given the choice, I would support publishers using these ads, in absence of a better solution.

<comment><USER9> If there was a paywall and it was priced too high in your view , what would you do? I assume you'd simply decide not to pay and move on. Online ads are essentially an honor system: I'll let you consume my content but you'll need to watch ads. Yet here you decide to circumvent the system instead of just walking away. Why?

<comment><USER10> The idea that there's an "honor system" always surprises me. Where is it stated that the cost of the content is watching the ads? That's not how ads work: nearly universally, what I'm told is "HEY, come get this great free content!" But when I reach for the content it's snatched away and the "but first a word from our sponsors" diatribe begins.

You can't have it both ways, either the content is free and I can consume it on my terms, or inform me of what's expected for this exchange and I'll make a decision about whether I want to pay the cost or not.

<comment><USER9> >Where is it stated that the cost of the content is watching the ads?

Does it need to be stated? When I leave my bike outside where is it stated that it's mine and you are not allowed to take a ride? Where is it stated that you shouldn't have loud conversations in the theater?

You know full well that ads pay for the content but choose to play the ignorant. You're doing this simply because you can and there are no consequences and, as of now, those that do watch the ads are financing the service you consume.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This makes me wonder, what are other viable revenue sources for content creators besides ads?

Personally I don't mind listening to a few ads on a podcast because I assume it is helping the creator cover their living expenses so that they may continue creating content that I enjoy. And spoken ads (hopefully) are not tracking me, although I suppose there are ways to overlay inaudible tones that other devices can pick up, etc.

<comment><USER12> I find ads in general, and particularly audio ones, to be a super annoying cognitive burden. I have to interrupt my train of thought and consciously block the message they're trying to pipe into my brain.

I'm happy to pay for things if its low friction and reasonably priced, but will never accept being advertised to (in any form really, but especially audio and video ads).

An audio adblocker seems like a great thing, and I'm excited about this. If enough of us use it, hopefully we can force creators to abandon ads and find a model where they work for us, not the ad companies.

I wish there was a way to block billboards too. Back when google was making google glass, I thought it'd be possible to block out billboard advertisements someday.. to bad that didn't work. Or, just move to a state that bans them, I guess.

<comment><USER13> > If enough of us use it, hopefully we can force creators to abandon ads and > find a model where they work for us, not the ad companies.

Why not just stop listening to what they're creating?

<comment><USER14> Because the content is desirable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I probably wouldn't use this as I would feel bad about it but as a UK listener I've listened to SO MANY adverts from American podcasts for products I can't buy.

I pay for stitcher premium and export the feed to an app that's actually useable.

I recently paid to support Thrilling Adventure Hour on patreon and find it pretty crappy they still have adverts on the paid feed.

<comment><USER16> I remember listening to a podcast (can't remember the name) but the adverts were tailored to my location.

I think the MP3 gets generated based on location.

<comment><USER17> A lot of audio ad broadcast software uses a combination of audible or inaudible tones to act as "triggers" to mark a location where an ad can be injected using some kind of location/time/etc aware data, the ad itself is very rarely baked into the stream unless it is something you're listening to a host read themselves.

In podcasts, the ad injection software will often pause the audio at the point where the ad tone occurred while it plays the ad, and resume it afterwards for continuity.

AdSwizz's AIS suite is one example of the tools commonly used for this: [https://www.adswizz.com/ad-insertion-suite/](https://www.adswizz.com/ad- insertion-suite/)

(I work in the internet radio space, lots of old-school internet radio streams are similar).

<comment><USER18> How does this work with a typical podcast player? The media download is typically just an mp3. The podcast software maker would have to be in on the scam otherwise it's an mp3 that plays from beginning to end.

<comment><USER19> When your player requests the mp3 file in this example the server on the fly can generate an mp3 file that your player then downloads. This means that they can serve different ads in old podcast episodes or even remove them in old episodes.

I heard about this tech on a podcast actually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Panoply has developed software for podcasts that allows them to inject targeted ads into downloads, which makes podcast advertising closer to the nightmare that we see on the web.

However, that could offer another avenue for ad-blocking. If you download multiple podcasts from different IPs, you can isolate the ads by finding the parts of the audio that are different.

<comment><USER21> That's a great idea if the injected ads are exactly the same length and always get put in the same place. If you have a 30 second ad in one download and 40s in another, 10 seconds of legitimate podcast audio gets interpreted as an advertisement.

<comment><USER22> It works even if they don't, you just need a more intense algorithm to do similarity matching across all offsets.

<comment><AUTHOR> With maximally repeated sequences, you can [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6012115](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6012115)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'd be really excited and willing to pay much more than the normal mobile app price to have this for my podcasts.

Nothing pisses me off quite like the time waste that is podcast advertising. I skip them, but I was dreaming of a system like this...

<comment><USER24> > Nothing pisses me off quite like the time waste that is podcast advertising.

Why would you be more willing to pay to an app developer who will shut down the revenue stream for the content creator, than to listen to the ads and therefore fund the content creator?

<comment><USER23> Unlike with web advertising, you're still downloading the ad in this case, there's no way for the creator or the advertiser to tell that you blocked it after.

I've never bought anything from an ad, never intentionally clicked one or visited a link from a podcast ad. There's truly no difference for me. Their revenue stream will remain intact, the kind of people who do that will keep doing that.

<comment><USER24> The revenue stream won't remain intact. This lowers the effectiveness of ads in the long run, reducing the price of ads and reducing the revenue for content producers.

There's no way to spin this around: this reduces revenue for the creator of the free content you're consuming (and for all other creators).

Everyone loses, except for the app maker, that makes money (if they are selling the app) by sucking it out of the content creators.

<comment><USER25> I'm going to spin it around: It reduces revenue from ads, thereby reducing advertising. Now the question is, how much content do you think is both something you truly want to listen to and something few people are willing to directly support financially. Personally, I'm starting to think that maybe all the crud advertising enables is just another downside to ads, not the benefit in the cost-benefit analysis.

<comment><USER24> So you'd kill advertising and content for everyone else just because you're personally willing to fork up money?

<comment><USER25> I don't have that power, and even if I did, I wouldn't ban advertising. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying I'm growing skeptical that the content advertising finances is actually valuable to the consumer, and am starting to think it may actually be harmful.

A lot of media is designed to be addictive, hooking the consumer in order to create a captive audience for ad delivery. I'm no longer sure the ads themselves, or even the tracking they often entail, are the worst thing about the whole system. That's why I'm not too bothered about giving people the tools to not see or hear ads if they so choose.

<comment><USER26> > that the content advertising finances is actually valuable to the consumer

They are not, advertisement never creates value for the society, it's a 0-sum game. They never add value they only shift the stream of money from a producer which makes a good product which would sell without ads to a producer which has money to invest in ads to trick people to buy the worse product.

<comment><USER24> > advertisement never creates value for the society, it's a 0-sum game

You're plainly, absolutely, completely, wrong. But, as you made the claim, I'll wait for your burden of proof.

> They never add value they only shift the stream of money from a producer > which makes a good product which would sell without ads to a producer which > has money to invest in ads to trick people to buy the worse product.

You just stated a very narrow case, as if it represented the whole.

Your argument is essentially "if you're selling well without ads, then ads will not add value", which is self-evident, but irrelevant.

<comment><USER26> How am I wrong that ads are a 0-sum game for the society? Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I really don't see where the value is for society. I understand that it's not for the advertiser, but for society?

<comment><USER24> Advertising enables product discovery, price discovery, and so on. That should be enough to answer your question.

Putting up a sign in front of your shop saying "New Mousetrap - <USER2> Design" is advertising.

If you make a better mousetrap and nobody knows about it, your mousetrap is irrelevant.

Sure, not all advertising generates benefits to society, just as not all products do.

<comment><USER26> There is a difference though, if I want to know something then I search for information, I go from one shop to another and do research to discover the best product. Which is kind of a pull mechanism.

What advertising does is a push mechanism, where they try to flood my brain with nonsense so that I get confused and don't buy the best product for me, but instead buy something the advertiser sells.

Product and price discovery can be done by me doing research, so saying that it's advertising enabling that is just dishonest.

<comment><USER24> Sure, and putting up a sign in front of your store is advertising.

Advertising is communication, you might not like it, but it is communication. It is product and price discovery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I aggressively block ads and all other forms of tracking in my browser, but I have to admit that I don't generally have a problem with podcast ads. Listening to some podcaster blather on for a minute about some product or service at least gives me the warm fuzzy feeling that they're earning _something_ for their efforts.

More podcasters really do need to get on the premium ad-free model though. I pay money to make ads go away on a few platforms (YouTube, Spotify etc) and would gladly put my money where my mouth is and do the same for podcasts. Websites, too, if anyone can come up with a decent way to make it work - <USER3> STOP TRACKING ME!

<comment><USER28> > Listening to some podcaster blather on for a minute about some product or > service at least gives me the warm fuzzy feeling that they're earning > something for their efforts.

You don't feel the same way about a website? What is different about podcasts? Genuinely curious, because I have a similar initial reaction but am not exactly sure why.

<comment><USER29> I'm not the person you're asking, but most websites offload the ads to a different service on a different server. It's the difference between your favorite podcast performer reading some copy, and a movie on TV fading out to showcase the great deals at _Luke 's Honda Dealership & Taco Shop Come On Down For The Tastiest Deals In Town_.

It also strongly indicates that the podcast author has vetted the ads, and is at least implicitly approving of the product; on the web, it's very likely that the author has absolutely no idea what ads are being shown to their visitors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I built a device to do this many decades ago. An electronics magazine published a schematic for a "voice/music discriminator". This was a simple analog circuit that ran the audio through a low-pass filter and then detected sharp cutoffs. Voice has those, but music without lyrics doesn't. It's not perfect, but it cuts off ad blithering before it gets annoying.

(I should find that thing. It's in my garage somewhere.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I would be really curious. I some day you find it please drop me an email!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This post is very well written! I like the colloquialism, exhaustive list of experiments (both successes and failures, to better educate others), future work and call to action, and a pervasive lack of fluff. In particular, this reads like many contemporary scientific papers, but is much clearer (I can understand everything with one pass - whoa!), albeit absent tabled data and extreme technical details. I wish more scientists wrote like this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the kind words

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Personally I want the same option I get from Google. I can see ads on YouTube or I can pay for an ad free YouTube. Now a creator will put their own ads inside the video is up to them. Personally I like when they put them at the end, like Smart Everyday does.

If there was an outlet where I can just pay for ad free podcast I would be happy to do it. It also would pay far more than what ads pay. I still remember the release of YouTube Red was how this was hurting creators but it was a cynical argument that paying actual money would pay less than a paying customer.

</comment><comment><USER5> Would be fun to record 'antivertisements' to replace the ads with. Ex. Instead of an Uber ad, its 15 seconds spiel about a recent scandal they've been involved in.

Punishing advertising dollars is the only way to reduce marketshare of the industry in the long term.

<comment><AUTHOR> This concept reminds me a nice Youtube video where the presenter suggests to associate brands with unpleasant situations in professional meetings.

It's in French, but there are subtitles. [https://youtu.be/AqCB6tGR3hs?t=658](https://youtu.be/AqCB6tGR3hs?t=658)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I want this for my TV in the form of an HDMI pass-through device that mutes the audio and/or greatly dims the picture while commercials are being played.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is already software to skip TV ads. Not perfect, but good enough apparently. For a short review see [https://www.adblockradio.com/blog/2018/12/10/ad-blocking- tv/](https://www.adblockradio.com/blog/2018/12/10/ad-blocking-tv/)

You could set that up on a raspberry Pi, to play IPTV.

A pure HDMI pass-through may be expensive because of the HDMI acquisition- side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Great work! It is very interesting to see the different algorithms you've used and the changes you were forced to make due to legal trouble.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is fantastic. Can we use this as a proxy when we input RSS feeds into our podcast apps? I use Overcast on iOS, for instance. I'd love to remove all audio ads from Overcast, both dynamically inserted and normal "live reads," which are also fairly toxic.

<comment><AUTHOR> Dynamically inserted ads could be automatically removed. Live reads are more difficult. It would require natural language processing, which is out of reach for now (but help is welcome!)

Adblock Radio as a proxy is totally feasible (Pi-Hole like [https://pi- hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/)). I am currently working on this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> That's what I've been dreaming for ages!

I've been musing about a system/software that could listen on my PC's audio and control/adjust/mute the volume when it detects ads.

Such a system could also work for video content played on a PC!

This system could also be implemented on a dongle-like Raspberry Pi that would take the PC's audio output (3.5mm jack in/out), process the audio, and play back the "clean" audio to it's jack output: that could be seen as an audio firewall.

I think that working with analog audio (instead of official radio's streams) is the way to go to avoid legal issues: they cannot plug the "analog hole"!

</comment><comment><USER37> I would really like this if only because I listen to a radio station through iheartradio and they run the same 3-4 commercials during breaks for weeks at a time. Just give me some different ads and I might not want to skip them!

</comment><comment><USER38> I will be very interested to see how well this does. This has been something I wish existed for a long time. Great work!

I'd much more prefer to pay the podcaster directly than to listen to ads. But this doesn't seem to be an option.

</comment><comment><USER39> In the UK this is called a TV Licence, it funds the BBC radio stations (local and national) that feature no adverts at all. I cant stand commerical radio and have never listened to one through choice.

</comment><comment><USER40> Hey op, my 2¢: just mute them, everywhere. Duplicate the audio stream, detect ads, use that to mute the volume of whatever is playing the ads.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's what I do on adblockradio.com/player

I am currently working on Sonos / Google Home / Amazon Alexa

<comment><USER40> > Sonos / Google Home / Amazon Alexa

Interesting, are you planning to mute Sonos/Home/Alexa by analyzing it's audio output stream? If so: do you plan to use the devices audio controls?

Are you planning on using the Sonos/Home/Alexa microphone for detection of other sources?

<comment><AUTHOR> I plan to "man in the middle" the HTTP stream.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why not have a service that maintains metadata for popular podcasts with the timing of the commercial parts so players that know how to read it can auto- skip? The players can charge for the option and the metadata can be supplied by the content creators so they get a portion of the proceeds. If the content providers don't want to supply the information it can be crowd-sourced.

</comment><comment><USER41> Seems interesting, I will try it. If it is working I may finally listen again to radio in my car after having stopped it for many years.

</comment><comment><USER40> made a comment when Apple acquired Shazam a few months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18066724](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18066724)

>...Unfortunately all product paths I can foresee will surely lead to targeted replacement ads, played at higher volume

Any thoughts on other ways to monetize? ;-)

</comment><comment><USER42> "I started Adblock Radio in the end of 2015, a few months after completing my PhD studies in fusion plasma physics."

Now I feel sad.

<comment><AUTHOR> What makes you sad? The fact that there is not enough funding for fusion plasma research? Or my unconventional career choices? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I think the way to go is directly supporting Podcast makers (outside of the platforms like Patreon who have dubious censoring practices). The ad-based model is inherently flawed and luckily it seems that most podcasts providing valuable content are moving away from it.

<comment><USER44> Care to give some examples? Patreon allows pretty much everyone.

<comment><USER43> The has recently been a controversy with Patreon removing some content creators accusing them of "hate speech". Here is a pretty comprehensive summary: [https://podnews.net/update/patreon- controversy](https://podnews.net/update/patreon-controversy)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have an automated system that is recording mixes from various radio stations and I was wondering if it's possible to get this to run on a saved file? Say I had an mp3, is there a way to run it through such program and get a resulting ad-free version?

</comment><comment><USER45> I would love to implement this on my Google Home mini when I listen to radio stations. If the radio stations are not going to provide an option to pay to not hear ads, I will gladly pay for a service to block ads.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am working on a "Man in the middle" device that would filter audio streams before they reach players like Google Home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Great article, thank you for sharing.

About the machine learning model; forgive me if any of these questions were covered in the article:

1) Why classify as three categories (music, talk, ads) versus just two (ads, content)? Seems like that might help simplify things, since I assume all we care about is whether something is an ad or not.

2) So based on the description you're feeding 4 seconds worth of buffer into the model for classification, every second; the model being a stateless RNN. I'm curious, did you try just using a (1D) CNN instead? That would allow you to use a more robust architecture, versus RNNs which tend to be finicky. (And RNN doesn't seem to provide benefit, since you aren't using its state, other than potentially being a smaller model).

3) AFAIK there are loss functions which penalize false positives (in this case, penalizing incorrectly tagging content as ads). Was this experimented with?

4) This one is more of a curious idea: 4 seconds worth of buffer might lack enough context, which we can see play out in some of the failings alluded to in "Future improvements". So I'm curious...

Suppose, if your architecture isn't set up this way already, that you've got a layer before your final layer that's just a little bit bigger than the number of categories. Say, 32 features. (A lot of RNN architectures are built with an output matrix that's HiddenState => Outputs (n=3). So I'm suggesting HiddenState => Embedding [n=32] => Outputs [n=3]).

Train that architecture like before. Now, take that trained model and chop off the output layer so that its output is those 32 element vectors. We can now build a secondary, context model on top of it. It takes as input those 32 element vectors (one vector per second) and outputs the same classifications (ad/not-ad). But since its input is much smaller, you can train an RNN with a much, much deeper BPTT.

Hopefully this model can not only be more intelligent by using context, but also take the place of your hysteresis.

Since the underlying model is fixed, you can pre-compute its outputs on your dataset, so there's absolutely no cost while training the higher order model (and the pre-computed dataset will be really tiny; 32 elements every second would be only 100mb for your 10 day corpus.)

Now, this is somewhat dependent on your corpus being of the nature "here's a long section of audio where the ad is tagged precisely". i.e. it can just be a mixed bag of "this whole audio segment is ad/not-ad". If you don't have that kind of data you'd need to create it (assuming my crazy idea is worth the effort). Hopefully you wouldn't need much. This higher order model shouldn't need to be very complex, which means it doesn't need a big corpus.

Or you could try to use a CTC loss function, in which case you just need a dataset that's large chunks of audio and vague labels like "this length of audio has 1 ad somewhere in it."

By the way, this isn't intended as advice; I'm by no means a domain expert here. I'm really just thinking out loud. And since none of the other comments at the time of this writing are discussing anything other than the morality of this software, I thought I'd take the time to inject some more technical discussion.

> hip-hop music, easily mispredicted as advertisements

Well given the endemic use of name dropping and product placement in popular hip-hop, I'm not sure that's a misprediction ... :P

Joking aside, one thing that might be useful is to find a stream with positively no ads (e.g. Spotify Premium, Apple Music, etc). Play that through a trained classifier. If the classifier ever detects an ad, add that audio sample to your corpus.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your high-quality technical questions.

1) Audio streams are naturally segmented between those three states. Separating talk from music is rather easy. The most challenging part is to separate talk from ads (spoken ads) and music from ads (musical ads). Filtering ads and talk gives you a music-only experience, which is good when you want to work for example.

2) 3) I am not an expert on RNNs. My understanding is that the LSTM keeps the state between each prediction. I will hopefully get back to you with more precise answers.

4) Your idea about the embedded layer N=32 looks very smart. The dataset is, strictly speaking, a mixed bags of 10-second 100% ads, 100% speech and 100% music (with some slight tolerance at the edges of the track). But when labeling data, I have often tried to label contiguous segments of a minute to several minutes. Though, to not spoil the dataset, I often get a discontinuity on transitions (e.g. music -> ads). So in conclusion I would need to create the dataset you describe. Not a big deal I guess.

X) Streams without ads are quite common. E.g. [http://www.radiomeuh.com/](http://www.radiomeuh.com/) or [https://www.fip.fr/](https://www.fip.fr/) The thing is that you get a very big corpus of whitelisted data. Too big actually. The solution I have used for a while is to monitor the radio metadata (using [https://github.com/adblockradio/webradio- metadata](https://github.com/adblockradio/webradio-metadata)) and downloading musics with youtube-dl. It worked quite well to bootstrap ;)

Is there any way we could keep in touch apart from Hacker News? Feel free to email me if you feel like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The reason ads for podcasts don't deserve blocking and are OK is that they are completely opt-in. You have to enter a code or go to a URL in order for the podcaster to get credit.

</comment><comment><USER48> The reason why audio adblocker should definitely exist:

those ads will be updated one day.( Company/product shut down...)

</comment><comment><USER49> I would suggest to integrate a simple local music player during ads and allow to select a specific playlist.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would not know how to do it on the web player, such as [https://www.adblockradio.com/player/](https://www.adblockradio.com/player/) Do you have an idea?

On standalone players, it a really great idea and it is already being considered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I wonder if this could work with Spotify free tier.

<comment><USER51> I've tried this a few years back when Spotify started repeating some annoying ad over and over. It's quite "low-tech" compared to adblockradio, but it worked pretty well.

[https://github.com/serialoverflow/blockify](https://github.com/serialoverflow/blockify)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Like the sound of this!!

</comment><comment><USER53> Detecting speech and music is particularly intriguing for different variable playback speed for speech bits and 1x for music bits.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do not understand your sentence :/

<comment><USER54> I think that they're saying it would be interesting to use music detection to have the podcast playback switch from an accelerated playback speed during speech to normal speed when music is detected.

<comment><AUTHOR> OK, this makes sense, good idea

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I like ads on podcasts: not invasive, support the shows and can't put malwares on my pc. Honestly I find an adblock for podcasts a total dick move (outside of the intellectual exercise part of course).

<comment><USER56> > Honestly I find an adblock for podcasts a total dick move

If you expect payment for a service, give your "customers" an opportunity to support you directly. It can be a premium account, merchandise, or even a simple donation service. Don't force your "customers" to become the product.

I don't see why podcasts should get a pass.

<comment><USER57> > If you expect payment for a service, give your "customers" an opportunity to > support you directly.

...but if that option isn't available, that makes stealing ok? "Hmm, I like this podcast but I don't like the ads. There's no premium support option. Therefore... I will consume the content of the podcast without the ads."

I find this line of thinking a bit immoral, to be honest. The moral option is to not listen to the podcast. And before you jump on me asking if its immoral to go to the bathroom during a TV ad break, I'm talking strictly about algorithmic ad-blocking.

It would be like if I had a place setup where you can get a copy of one of my indie video games I've been privately developing after watching an ad. My place has no option to flat out pay for copies of my indie games. But... you really like my indie games so you decide it's okay to just walk in and steal copies of my indie games until I provide you with an option to pay for them.

<comment><USER58> Not listening to the ads is so far from stealing, I am almost not sure if you're serious. It's my right to decide whether to rewind a minute, to lower the volume, to skip a whole boring episode etc'. It's also my right to process the content with an app that modifies it, for my own use.

<comment><USER57> It's not the act of not listening to them that's stealing, it's the act of algorithmically excising them that's stealing, _especially_ (but not exclusively) if there is a premium option available.

For example, watching non-premium crunchyroll with an ad-blocker enabled is dishonest, IMO.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Lice DNA suggests when people first wore clothes - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/body-lice/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> "Homo sapiens originated about 200,000 years ago." That figure keeps changing, and it's so _fascinating_ \- fascinating enough that I wish they'd given a little more than the bald assertion of the current estimate as though it were long-established fact.

<comment><USER3> Aren't species boundaries pretty fuzzy when you start trying to look at them across time? A species is defined as a closed set of organisms which can breed with one another. I could breed with someone ten years older, they could breed with someone ten years older than them, and so on into the past until we have an unbroken chain of "could breed with" leading back to reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates with whom I could most definitely not breed (and probably wouldn't want to). But there was no dividing line between "homo sapiens" and "something else" as we go up the chain; there couldn't possibly have been.

I get the impression that palaentologists define species by macroscopic features in the fossils, but that they are forced to do so in a fairly handwavey way, so any date when "homo sapiens" really first appeared is pretty arbitrary.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, but it's really germane to (what I consider) the real question, which is: "When did our path to history start?"

I mean, it's a big difference if we had 150,000 years of prehistory, or a million, or 50,000.

<comment><USER3> I really don't see what you mean by "our path to history"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> _It's possible for body lice to have evolved from head lice in only a few generations, according to laboratory studies, Kitchen said. No evidence indicates that head lice can evolve from body lice._

This seems like an odd statement. Can anyone provide insight into what this means?

</comment><comment><USER4> The interesting thing for me here was the assertion that mitochondrial DNA was inaccurate for deducing evolutionary timescales. This has important bearings for our current understanding of human evolution which as I understand it is based heavily on mitochondrial data.

<comment><USER5> >Though well suited to gauging the timing of evolutionary events

I think you may have misread that.

<comment><USER4> I don't think so - they claim it is well suited but simultaneously claim it was wrong by 271% when compared to mitochondrial + nuclear DNA samples because mitochondrial DNA "is a relatively small part of the genome". I thought the advantage of mitochondrial DNA was its stability but if it leads to that margin of error it makes me curious about the reliability of other evolutionary work.</comment></comment></comment>


Employee motivation ideas for managers and leaders - <AUTHOR> https://www.peoplebox.ai/blog/10-ways-to-use-one-on-one-meetings-to-motivate-employees/ <comment><USER2> If you let something other than more money motivate you to work harder, you're a sucker. If you are working in the private sector, the transaction is pretty clear: they give you money, you give them labor. If, by some psychological trick, they get you to give them more labor for the same amount of money, then I think you've been had.

<comment><USER3> That's a very depressing take. Are there any scenarios where it's not true?

What if I'm enjoying what I'm doing? What if I like my coworkers?

<comment><USER4> Some of my coworkers brought up the story of NASA's renegade "Pirate Paradigm" that upset the status quo and busted through bureaucratic barriers before Agile was in vogue. [0] It's a true story of a group of young engineers that created a new system for mission control that would enable missions for years to come, while the thought of it was lambasted by management.

But one quote that popped out to me was:

> By taking action that challenged the established culture of their > organization, the Pirates innovated new mission control capabilities for > NASA, resulting in the group's first project, Real-Time Data Systems (RTDS), > __which took a year's worth of off-hours time to create. __

> >>>Which took a year's worth of off-hours time to create.

So the team performed this groundbreaking work with no extra pay, on top of their other duties. This was construed to be inspirational among my coworkers who brought it up. I can see it. It is really awesome, and I bet those engineers felt like they were on top of the world.

But to me, this is almost crazy to think that - in today's world - working for a large business the size of NASA that you wouldn't be fairly compensated while doing such immensely valuable work far above your personal scope of duty - even if you have the best coworkers or love your work. Sure, in several industries this happens all the time (especially startups, where founders perform immense amounts of work with no pay with the hope of hitting gold), but in the big corporate, government, and defense contracting worlds this is not only discouraged, but often disallowed.

[0] [https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-a-group-of-nasa- rene...](https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-a-group-of-nasa-renegades- transformed-mission-control/)

<comment><USER3> What a great counter example. Very inspiring, thank you for bringing it up.

I'm having a tough time elucidating and expressing my feelings on this subject. I've gone through burnout, which was largely self inflicted tbh, with silent approval of management.. I feel like the parent poster, but I don't want to. I guess I'm struggling with the notion that employee-employer relationship is zero sum. Hobbies don't typically yield direct monetary benefits, yet I still partake. I dont't think this is going anywhere, I'm just thinking out loud.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I do not want to sound too cynical, but whenever I see those articles, to me it conveys the message of 'how do we not pay people more, but still extract more work out of them'. The article is about the same. It even seems to follow the same format making me question whether it was written by a human. And I am saying that just having gone through positive psychology section in my MBA class.

Employee motivation is an important subject, but the underlying goal seems to have perverted that subject.

<comment><AUTHOR> So motivation and productivity are interlinked I feel. If the economy is booming, and you have done a good job, it will be regarded. I had a manager who always said, don't ask for promotion, let your work promote you. I think he was right.

<comment><USER6> When I was working in academia, I had an advisor who used to tell me: "just do good work and you will find a TT position". Never found one, despite the objectively good work I published. Not even an interview. Tremendously bad advice that came from a place of laziness. As a manager, I like it when my reports ask for reasonable promotions or greater work responsibilities: it shows confidence, self-reflection, pro-activeness. All traits I value quite a bit.

<comment><USER5> I agree. I had my share of rather bad advisors. I hate to admit it, but my mom had better advice about it since it directly related to human nature. Better work won't do the trick if the right person does not know about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Honestly, I wonder how many people apply these articles literally and make the employee feel even more uncomfortable because clearly, the manager doesn't give shit about them. He is just following the article and if you tell them the truth, they are gonna fire you or put you on some performance hook

<comment><USER8> Well, at least 16M fewer people can apply the ideas in the article this month than last month. The timing of the article seems a little off.

<comment><AUTHOR> i agree

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What I have seen work best is enabling people to work on the stuff they are excited about or learn and empower them to set meetings, talk to stakeholders to make things happen like an entrepreneur and they will shine! Also, try to keep the bs out of their way and get them the resources they need so they can expand into whoever they want to become.

</comment><comment><USER10> Here's the thing - this isn't bad advice, but it's the CS equivalent of "Hello world" in Python or Basic.

We don't need software to manage people. We need training for our managers. These tips are all things you should know before you ever get handed management responsibilities.

<comment><USER11> > These tips are all things you should know before you ever get handed > management responsibilities.

In this way I think this is highly valuable. Many managers don't get _any_ training before being handed the keys.

<comment><USER12> >Many managers don't get any training before being handed the keys.

This!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have just built an app that is meant to build motivation by getting the remote teams to know each other better. aboutsnack.com

<comment><AUTHOR> sounds like a great idea!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here are some employee motivation ideas that I know that work:

Self-determination theory by Deci and Ryan lumps everything into three components:

\- The ability to make decisions / agency over what you do (they call this autonomy)

\- Feeling connected with other people (relatedness)

\- Being able to get better and to start at the right level (they call this competence)

Any idea that you can think of that relates to CAR (Competence, Autonomy, Relatedness) will most likely work.

Here are a few:

\- Relatedness: Say you want to learn mathematics. Find a study group for 2 hours per week! Don't like your study group? Find a study group until you like one. Can't find someone, then at least get your social media straight: find mathematicians you like on YouTube, Twitter and the like. Email them, ask them questions, who cares they're busy? Consume their content (isn't 3Blue1Brown motivating? ;-) ) and see if you can engage more with them.

\- Competence: You're too long stuck at a problem and you feel demotivated. Well the theory predicts that, so you need to find a way to see your progress. Either do this by getting easier problems to solve or get better feedback mechanisms. One way to do that is to reflect after the fact (when you solved the problem) how it is possible to be stuck for so long. Then the next time you get stuck, you can include this meta-process and reflect on it again, over time you'll see yourself get better with this reflection. So now you get feedback from two things that are relating to each other!

\- Autonomy: Do you feel forced to do something? Try to see if you can find a choice within the activity. I did this while studying, I chose to study "how to study as fast as possible", suddenly I found any topic fascinating. This is why managers forcing a certain work style down employees their throats are hurting their intrinsic motivation. Allowing employees to find out about their own ways of working yields higher autonomy.

I'm always noticing that when I'm unmotivated that I'm sorely lacking in one of these three aspects, and in most cases it's relatedness as I have no one to bounce my ideas around with.

So ask yourself when you're really unmotivated, are you low on competence, autonomy or relatedness? I'm curious to hear if you feel high on all three (email is in the profile). I never experienced it.

Anyways, those are my tips to motivate anyone really.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is junk content marketing, most likely copied from past HN discussions.

</comment><comment><USER14> Edit: I was right, this article is simply a content marketing piece.

My full analysis is below:

Let's look at their list.

1\. Ask them 'how motivated are you' before the meeting

Only possible in organizations with amazingly high trust. If people have an inkling of a fear to lose their jobs, this won't work. Otherwise it would work because it will add some self-reflection to the both of you. I think the employee should also ask it back to the manager! The reason: being self reflective on each other's motivation allows you to understand it and influence it for being more productive in a way that you feel happy about.

2\. Start with a check-in about their general well-being

This a variant of #1, this shouldn't be a different point.

3\. Provide personalized feedback

This also has the "requires super non-toxic" working culture requirement. The idea works though, I think self-determination theory explains it quite will in their "competence" part.

4\. Discuss the performance blockers and challenges

should be lumped together with 3, it's part of feedback or the feedback is part of this discussion.

5\. Follow up on previous action items

This improves reliability. I think this works in both toxic and non-toxic cultures.

6\. Discuss career growth

Anecdata: in my case I left a job because they offered me the position of backend developer after being a freelance full-stack developer for 3 months. I like full-stack and front-end if you can't figure that out after 3 months, then you haven't been paying attention and you don't care about me. In hindsight I was right.

7\. Be their mentor

This is also the fastest way to demotivate someone if the mentor doesn't fit or is a bad mentor. I have both had good and bad mentors in my life. As with anything social, it's an amplifier, what the sign of that amplifier is depends on the relationship you have with those people.

8\. Make them feel valued

#5 should be in this one as well.

9\. Accountability matters

Yea this is called healthy collaboration (FYI: they mean the manager must be accountable). It's good to say it though! Despite it being so simple, one could forget it. A non-toxic work culture is required.

10\. Recognition is important

Well yes, rewarding fairly is super important. Not only is it important for extrinsic motivation but if you're crossing the sense of justice with an employee, then you're screwing with intrinsic motivation as well! I wonder why the article didn't say that. We all know that if someone feels not being fairly judged they start to rebel either covertly or overtly. I had this a lot in high school and I'm sure it wouldn't be any different in the workplace, especially when I read all the HN comments that contain the phrase "butts on seats".

\-----

In conclusion: this article is mediocre. By skimming it I pointed to some structural issues it had. Moreover, most tips require a non-toxic work environment.

This should be actively stated as such! Because I think in some cases it's simply not possible, some places are so financially tight that based on that you can simply deduce it's going to be a lot of stress to work there for anyone.

Nevertheless, I think tip #5 while basic is really valuable since it's a tip that could always be implemented to quite a high degree. Moreover, the tips themselves are important to be stated and none of the tips were wrong. In my opinion, a subtle wrong tip would be: always smile to your employee! They need to feel your positivity. <\-- That's wrong because while positivity is important, so is vulnerability at times and this tip destroys it. They never erred like that.

And despite giving it perhaps such a "harsh" conclusion, I do still think the article has value. I simply don't think there's any unique value that someone like Simon Sinek wouldn't be able to give you in a more clear and coherent manner.

After reading this, I feel like I could've written a better article and I suspect this is simply a piece of content marketing for the company.

If so, then I dare the people of peoplebox.ai to hire me. I dare to put the money where my mouth is. I think I could do better. (I think a lot of people on HN could do better for that matter. But I think it'd be actually fun :P)

</comment><comment><USER16> The title to this post caught my eye because I have always found it amusing that so many companies have a class of employees who have the job of dreaming up ways to squeeze more work out of employees. Or at least, that is how some people tend to operate in that role. I find the advice in the article to be generic, creepy, and patronizing.

Patronizing:

> As a manager, you are in charge of handling millennials' emotions and > ensuring that they are motivated to contribute their best effort to the > organization.

So, millennials can't handle their own emotions or be managers themselves? Gen-Xers and Boomers promoted to management by virtue of the fact that they are not millennials? Why even make this about millennials?

Creepy:

> An employee's happiness quotient depends upon 4 factors – supervisor, > recognition, job, company. Ask them to rate these factors on a scale to 10 > and if their score is less than 28, you have a disengaged and unmotivated > employee.

Pro tip: Play mind games with your employees to find out if they are motivated or not and then keep a score of the results that you can use to track their motivation score behind their back.

Seriously, don't do this at all. This is terrible advice. Best case scenario is the employee is oblivious to the objective and worse case is this becomes a new metric to game. Human metrics will be gamed. It is inevitable. This type of shenanigan will make people resent you.

Generic:

> A simple question about their health and personal life will help them find a > connection with you. A light-hearted banter would help them in understanding > you better.

This sounds like advice you would give an alien who is about to meet a human for the first time. That is to say, this is obvious advice.

> Discuss the performance blockers and challenges

More obvious and generic advice.

> Start with a check-in about their general well-being

Extend common platitudes to your employees. Ground breaking.

This is a marketing piece meant to sell software for tracking one on one meetings. However, in case any managers are reading and think this sounds like great advice, here is some alternative advice.

I have had managers who inspired me to do my best work, managers who inspired me to walk out the door, and managers who did not inspire me at all. I have been a good leader and a bad leader. When I was a bad leader I thought human metrics mattered and that I could control outcomes by using the metrics guide my decision making. This caused friction and resentment. When I was a good leader, I was genuine with the people I was working with and the rest flowed effortlessly. The managers I appreciated the most were also genuine. Genuine is a state of being and there is no formula to create that state. If there was, it would not longer be genuine. It would be synthetic.</comment>